Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Kelly (artist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete -Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dave Kelly (artist)
This article does not meet the notability guidelines for people as set out in WP:BIO (see User:Quirex's analysis) or WP:Notability. Jacj 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, since all of the sources are web pages affiliated with the entry's subject, it also violates WP:OR. --Jacj 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- notable (and prolific) webcomic artist, as well as a major contributor on SomethingAwful.com. Haikupoet 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kelly's notability has not been verified so far (see response to Keolah below), and prolificacy is not a sufficient criterion for establishing notability. Being a major contributor to Something Awful simply means the he merits a mention within that entry, not an entire entry of his own. --Jacj 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The notability of Something Awful itself has still not been established conclusively. Most of its justifications don't hold up to careful scrutiny. It has survived several AFDs, but so did GNAA... --Afed 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the one AfD for Something Awful that's listed was an overwhelming Keep, so I don't really see your grounds for making that statement. And to Jacj: browbeating Keep votes is bad form. Please don't do it; it annoys people. Haikupoet 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Something Awful definately passes WP:WEB as there have been more than 2 non-trivial media mentions in the past. I don't think debating votes over policy issues is brow beating and I don't think it is good form to stifle debate by saying it is rude. --Quirex 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- If Something Awful indeed has non-trivial media mentions, they should be cited as sources in that article. It is woefully lacking of external citations, and should be cleaned up. --Afed 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you believe it's "browbeating" and "bad form" to explain why wrong and misleading reasons for a decision are wrong and misleading, it would be prudent to avoid any discussions where people might have to explain why they disagree with each other.
Since the AfD process is not, in fact, a democratic vote but more like a weighing-up of the reasons for and against deletion, it makes sense that only genuine reasons for keeping or deleting should be considered. --Jacj 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)- How can I put this... it gives the impression that you're jumping on people, pigpiling. It seems to only happen in cases where someone is really dead set on there being a specific outcome to the AfD debate. I really only can say that it doesn't look good for your side that you're not willing to let your original arguments stand on their own merits. Haikupoet 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Something Awful definately passes WP:WEB as there have been more than 2 non-trivial media mentions in the past. I don't think debating votes over policy issues is brow beating and I don't think it is good form to stifle debate by saying it is rude. --Quirex 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the one AfD for Something Awful that's listed was an overwhelming Keep, so I don't really see your grounds for making that statement. And to Jacj: browbeating Keep votes is bad form. Please don't do it; it annoys people. Haikupoet 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The notability of Something Awful itself has still not been established conclusively. Most of its justifications don't hold up to careful scrutiny. It has survived several AFDs, but so did GNAA... --Afed 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kelly's notability has not been verified so far (see response to Keolah below), and prolificacy is not a sufficient criterion for establishing notability. Being a major contributor to Something Awful simply means the he merits a mention within that entry, not an entire entry of his own. --Jacj 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Entirely growing sick of seeing people nominating things as "non-notable" simply because they haven't heard of them. Notable webcomic artist sporting multiple well-known comics, some of which were on Keenspot, which alone should be enough even disregarding everything else he's been involved in. --Keolah 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you so certain that my judgement of Kelly as non-notable is based solely on not having heard of him? In fact I have heard of him from being a member of the Something Awful forums. Your claim to his notability rests on his comics being (1) well-known, and (2) an important feature of Keenspot.
(1) doesn't really hold up. If Kelly's comics were sufficiently well known as to be notable, then there would be references to the comics from sources other than websites Kelly has a hand in running. As it is, the three citations given in the article are all links to sites Kelly runs. So his comics are apparently not well-known enough to be considered notable.
Regarding (2): Kelly certainly does have a webcomic affiliated with Keenspot (or at least he did — the latest strip was uploaded six months ago), but that only justifies listing it on the Wikipedia entry for Keenspot; it does not, in itself, establish notability for the comic, nor for the creator, who is two degrees separate.
Additionally, you haven't addressed the problem that the article consists of original research. --Jacj 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you so certain that my judgement of Kelly as non-notable is based solely on not having heard of him? In fact I have heard of him from being a member of the Something Awful forums. Your claim to his notability rests on his comics being (1) well-known, and (2) an important feature of Keenspot.
-
- Does something not being recent make it not having been notable, or even notable in its time? Shakespeare hasn't been updated in hundreds of years, by that estimate. :P And you seem to claim that the only websites which ever mention him or his comics are his own. That's extremely not-true as well, as a quick google search would have indicated if you had bothered actually looking, as I was able to find numerous sites unrelated to him discussing such in under a minute. --Keolah 08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I went through checking each notability test I did search for reliable sources on Dave Kelly. I did not find any, I search google, google news, blogsearch, google news archives. I found nothing that wasn't a blog. Please read WP:BIO and my post, it is very clear by policy that there is no established notability. --Quirex 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Shakespeare is documented on media other than the WWW. And it is nonetheless true that the only citations in Kelly's entry refer to sites he runs. --Jacj 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Does something not being recent make it not having been notable, or even notable in its time? Shakespeare hasn't been updated in hundreds of years, by that estimate. :P And you seem to claim that the only websites which ever mention him or his comics are his own. That's extremely not-true as well, as a quick google search would have indicated if you had bothered actually looking, as I was able to find numerous sites unrelated to him discussing such in under a minute. --Keolah 08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As proven by Jacj and Quirex this person is non-notable. 204.191.190.187 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. --incog 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per me and nom. No secondary sources, no awards, no specific second party articles about his work. Since the article doesn't rely on any secondary source it seems to be WP:OR. --Quirex 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per anony. Danny Lilithborne 07:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not because I've not heard of him, but because I see no evidence of passing the primary notability criterion. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
